I'm planning to adopt both. Essentially, what I need was azureus, but then as a dependency I need to adopt swt-gtk. Since in the future I plan to help maintaining eclipse, since it's orphaned right now, then I'm killing two birds in one shot here. Best regards. On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 23:03 +0200, Adnan Hodzic wrote: > Adrian, > > Are you planning to adopt both azureus and swt-gtk, or just swt-gtk? > > Adnan > > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 15:12 -0400, Adrian Perez wrote: > > Ok, I was expecting to upload it later, but since I got the answers from > > the maintainer, then I'll upload it for weekend review to > > mentors.debian. I know there's work to do still, but I've tested the > > packages, they install-purge gracefully, are almost lintian-clean > > (besides the fact that gives me debhelper-no-misc-depends). I've made a > > few hello-world-kind of program using SWT without any compile or runtime > > errors. Please keep an eye on it. I'll be working on it at the weekend > > too, so if you could give your points earlier, that would be great. > > > > On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:15 -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote: > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > > > I maintain SWT (swt-gtk) for Debian. If you send me the diff and dsc, > > > I'll look over your work this weekend. Adnan Hodzic was also > > > interested in adopting swt-gtk and azureus. If you like, you could > > > collaborate with him. Thanks for considering adopting swt-gtk and > > > azureus. They could use a maintainer that uses Azureus more frequently > > > than I do. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Shaun > > > > > > 2009/6/25 Adrian Perez <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > > > > Thanks for your reply. > > > > I know I could upload to mentors. But since it's quite ethical to > > > > request the maintainer's feedback before adopting a package, I was > > > > asking because I have no way of establishing contact with him, since > > > > I've tried a lot in the last days. > > > > > > > > I'm currently doing some refinements, and planning to add the x86_64 > > > > and ppc versions as arch-patches. > > > > > > > > I think the previous maintainer could sponsor it, but because he is > > > > probably off, then I should RFS it. > > > > > > > > Thank you all. Feedback welcome.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part